Life Spotted on Venus - Russian Scientist

Originally posted by butcherguy
What kind of wear and tear?

My guess would be that the electronics would fail first, due to the internal temperature of probe exceeding the design temperature limitations of the electronics. That would happen before the titanium exterior would break down.

Here is a bit from Smithsonian Air and Space discussing the environmental effects...

As Lori Glaze of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, envisions it based on work she’s done on other Venus mission concepts, the lander’s death will not be peaceful—no “Daai-sy, Daaaaai-sy” sign-off, followed by silence.

After the batteries shut down, they will continue to bake in the 850-degree heat. Soon after, says Glaze, they will almost certainly explode, and the blast will probably breach the titanium pressure shield around the inner electronics.

When the lander stops shuddering, the toxic air will go to work, eating any exposed wires down to the nubs, and the carbon dioxide will bleach any of the lander’s decorations (like American flags). All the metals will corrode, and the supercritical CO2 and acids and ocean-like pressure—all the hellish forces of Venus—will do what they do best, and destroy the lander piece by piece.

Forbidden Planet
(The quoted exert is on page 4)

Originally posted by Larry L
Also, I havn't fount the Japanese pics that were NASA pics originally yet (still looking),

Here is one thread about the China Moon pics versus NASA pics:

Not JAXA.....
China: Our Moon Photo is not Fake

Shameless thread promotion...

Originally posted by jonnywhite
That's highly unlikely. It wouldn't be carbon-based, I don't think.

Well when you have facts to back up what you think... maybe I read the rest of your post

Originally posted by Larry L
According to John Lear there are FAR more images.

Yes there are a lot more images... and a few have appeared on the Mentalandscape website. Problem is we have no way to know exactly how many there are, what condition they are in, and where to get them.

Seems Don Mitchell somehow got access to some of them to be able to process them.

So we have no idea which photos the scientist actually examined. The fact that he claims movement between frames means that there has to be a series of images in existence... a series we have not yet seen.

But we can expect several more pages of people thinking the lens cape is the 'critter'

It's funny how you never see some kind of attempt at colour rendering with the Venus pictures. Okay everything got baked and was in flux as it baked, but there are visible the artifacts lying around from the lander in high contrast, of which the orginal colour would be known, the lander itself, and its known colours?? That Don Mitchell picture? is a prime example.

How long would the camera lens survive in those conditions?

Originally posted by Larry L

Originally posted by JimObergGawd, I hope you're not a registered voter.

The feeling's mutual, sir. Because if you'll believe some of the complete non-sense NASA often spews as scientific fact...............what won't you believe? Were you really shocked when that "change" never came? But hey, it takes all kinds.

When authority figures have been proven to continually lie, I actually start looking into what that person or org. says. And from my studies into things NASA says, they lie alot. And their entire description of Venus is one of those things they lie about.

I wish you would provide some links to the data you say you know exists, that supports your claims. So far, only bluster and bluff.

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Heres a picture of Venus's surface taken by the same mission there referring to the the OP.

If I remember rightly they didn't take many pictures because the camera melted.

ETA:

The Venera 9 and 10 landers had two cameras each. Only one functioned because the lens covers failed to separate from the second camera on each lander. The design was changed for Venera 11 and 12, but this change made the problem worse and all cameras failed on those missions. Venera 13 and 14 were the only landers on which all cameras worked properly; although unfortunately, the titanium lens cap on Venera 14 landed precisely on the area which was targeted by the soil compression probe.

ALS

edit on 20-1-2012 by ALOSTSOUL because: (no reason given)

could the round thing be one of the lense protectors?

"the titanium lens cap on Venera 14 landed precisely on the area which was targeted by the soil compression probe."


just read thread see been discussed

Originally posted by jonnywhite
In a lot of ways you're right, but unfortunately this does not give you license to crack your head open and claim unjustifiable or unknowable things. I think that if things of this nature only ever stay in the realm of speculation and do not start to impact actual policy or real world decisions then it's acceptable and possibly encouraged. But the problem happens when people take these far out ideas and let them "guide" their rationale mind. It's a lot like cherry picking.

Uhm... right. What "unjustifiable and unknowable things" have I claimed to know, exactly? If you think the "shadow biosphere" theory that I mentioned is a "far out" idea, then you haven't read much science. Heard of Paul Davies, for example? He and others in his field seems to let such far out ideas guide their rational minds, and it's led to some rather interesting things.

I do agree with you that there's a limit to how far out we should go, but... the post of mine that you responded to spoke of the anthropocentrism that's so apparent in this thread, right? Not the policy decisions that may face us were those biases to be eliminated. (We're FAR from that....)

And my Flatland reference covers aspects of reality that we probably CANNOT know. In that metaphor, we can see the circle expand (as the sphere passes through the only two dimensions we know), and we can study that effect and speculate about the reasons, but is there really any hope of actually contemplating the 'up' and 'down' there? And, expanding one dimension, up to our 3... what is at right-angles to a cube? We've apparently had no evolutionary need to know any such 4th spacial dimension (should one exist), or its analogue in other domains, or else we'd have the associated senses and level of consciousness needed. We don't.. so we can't. But the point is that such unknowables ARE all still part of the overall REALITY, and may affect that portion of the reality that we can see in countless ways....

reply to post by zorgon


Poor guy, You clearly have bumped your head. I know what is real and what is not, only you would have no way of knowing that now would you? Keep your head in the ground while the real deal reveals itself very soon. Bah, Bah!!! ~SheopleNation

reply to post by zorgon


Oh wow, well great job following up.

Hope you hear back.

Thanks for the info brotha.

reply to post by stirling

the universe is a strange place and so is life,last few years they have been finding it where according to them we shouldn,t be......that means that life could be in the places that was thot not possible....it could be anywhere that its adapted too,what are we to say u can,t live there?

When you consider that we recently found bacteria that eat arsenic for food, organism's could easily exist there.

news.discovery.com...


I think you really need to think out of the box on this one.

There may be non carbon based sentient life forms out there, who knows.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Larry L
According to John Lear there are FAR more images.

Yes there are a lot more images... and a few have appeared on the Mentalandscape website. Problem is we have no way to know exactly how many there are, what condition they are in, and where to get them.

Seems Don Mitchell somehow got access to some of them to be able to process them.

So we have no idea which photos the scientist actually examined. The fact that he claims movement between frames means that there has to be a series of images in existence... a series we have not yet seen.

But we can expect several more pages of people thinking the lens cape is the 'critter'

Yes, I agree! Guys, I think we are not looking at the pictures of the supposed critters they found because those pictures haven't been released to the public. The article is saying that they found something... but those pics are not the ones they have displayed for us. Just my opinion.

Peace

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
When you consider that we recently found bacteria that eat arsenic for food, organism's could easily exist there.

news.discovery.com...


I think you really need to think out of the box on this one.

There may be non carbon based sentient life forms out there, who knows.

edit on 21-1-2012 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)

I agree with you, I dont think carbon life will be found on Venus.
Like the Arsenic lifeform you mention or perhaps like this one, metalic based life
www.mnn.com

Originally posted by gambon

ETA:

Venera 13 and 14 were the only landers on which all cameras worked properly; although unfortunately, the titanium lens cap on Venera 14 landed precisely on the area which was targeted by the soil compression probe.

So... TWO missions ALL the cameras worked properly...

So... where are those pictures from ALL those cameras

Originally posted by dannotz
Oh wow, well great job following up.
Hope you hear back.
Thanks for the info brotha.

Still no reply but its the weekend. I also have a friend in Moscow. I will put him on it when I next hear from him...

In the meantime... have a look at this image of Venus from Magellan (without the lava orange)

reply to post by zorgon


Zorgon, I for one would be interested on your take on this photo. Thanks!

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by dannotz
Oh wow, well great job following up.
Hope you hear back.
Thanks for the info brotha.

Still no reply but its the weekend. I also have a friend in Moscow. I will put him on it when I next hear from him...

Well lets hope they get back! No matter one's personal opinion on life in the universe, what one considers good enough eveidence or any other symantic, everybody wants to see these pictures and the paper. I think it's pretty clear that the pictures refferenced so far are not what we should be looking at.

Something made this guy who is well educated and respected, come out and say he believes there were life forms in those pictures he was talking about (all be it in a round about way). Does anybody speak Russian? It would be interesting to know what is going on in their media concerning this story, and although google translate is a good tool, I find it hard to follow anything in broken English - the devil is always in the detail. I've still not found any pictures other than what we have seen already, which is annoying. They must be well hidden, or not released, or I am sure ATS would have found them by now.

reply to post by JimOberg


All i see in that picture is a half broken disk, but nothing suggests life what so ever.